Another Texas Execution

[Bruceswar]

I think death penalty is applicable in other states than Texas. but It's Texas which always comes to light when a life sentence is concluded. in other words, I don't hear/see people protesting over execution in California.

California? Stanley Tookie Williams comes to mind right off the bat. Other states have problems also or I should say they have other cases protested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Williams

is it correct that Texas officers/detective/whatever do not make every effort to make sure they are gonna execute the right guy?

Having served on a grand jury I can tell you these detectives put countless hours into some of these cases.(The ones that require it) They take their work serious and try to do the best job possible. When a murder case comes up they are extra careful to look at all the evidence.

[joe snuffy]

Viva Texas justice. Piss on the UN/Barack attempting to meddle. Glad this child raping POS died.

Texas motto: Some folks need killin

[The Bison King]

So, if we're going to abolish the death penalty just because occasionally an innocent person gets put to death, we might as well abolish prison as well, because the same thing happens. Hell, let's just let all the murderers and rapists run free and not punish them at all just to be absolutely sure that no innocent people might ever be suspected for the crimes.

Here's a novel idea: justice. We punish and attempt to rehabilitate those who we convict and where there is reasonable doubt about the person's guilt, we do not convict them.

Hahaha...rehabilitate. Is that what you think happens in jail and prison? Prison is a school for criminals. Sure, some (read: a small minority) of people might "find" Jesus or Allah and truly repent and change their ways, but the majority are made into even bigger criminals. They learn bigger and better tricks of the trade and develop a mentality of survival that doesn't translate well into society. When they get out, they are worse off than before. For one, they are likely much more violent (assuming they weren't very violent to begin with) and not at all afraid to use that violence to get what they want (something that is regularly done in prison). Also, they get out and have a hell of a time finding employment, which fuels the cycle and drives them to commit more crime in order to even survive. And this is all assuming that the inmate wasn't already a gang member when they went in. If this is the case, then absolutely nothing changes, except they've had lots of time to beef up and practice their fighting skills.

Alright I'm not trying to blatantly troll you anymore, but are you aware that Iliad basically said that the system is broken and that we should be rehabilitating as a better solution and that you then replied by listing all the ways in which the current system fails? How it doesn't rehabilitate, how it makes prisoners worse! and more violent, how it's impossible for them too get jobs afterward and return to society. You used all these things as a point against rehabilitation when these are all the reasons why Iliad is right. The system is broken you basically said it yourself it makes criminals worse Rehabilitation makes criminals better its a different solution than just throwing them in a cell with equally messed up or worse criminal minds.

[tkr4lf]

So, if we're going to abolish the death penalty just because occasionally an innocent person gets put to death, we might as well abolish prison as well, because the same thing happens. Hell, let's just let all the murderers and rapists run free and not punish them at all just to be absolutely sure that no innocent people might ever be suspected for the crimes.

Here's a novel idea: justice. We punish and attempt to rehabilitate those who we convict and where there is reasonable doubt about the person's guilt, we do not convict them.

Hahaha...rehabilitate. Is that what you think happens in jail and prison? Prison is a school for criminals. Sure, some (read: a small minority) of people might "find" Jesus or Allah and truly repent and change their ways, but the majority are made into even bigger criminals. They learn bigger and better tricks of the trade and develop a mentality of survival that doesn't translate well into society. When they get out, they are worse off than before. For one, they are likely much more violent (assuming they weren't very violent to begin with) and not at all afraid to use that violence to get what they want (something that is regularly done in prison). Also, they get out and have a hell of a time finding employment, which fuels the cycle and drives them to commit more crime in order to even survive. And this is all assuming that the inmate wasn't already a gang member when they went in. If this is the case, then absolutely nothing changes, except they've had lots of time to beef up and practice their fighting skills.

Alright I'm not trying to blatantly troll you anymore, but are you aware that Iliad basically said that the system is broken and that we should be rehabilitating as a better solution and that you then replied by listing all the ways in which the current system fails? How it doesn't rehabilitate, how it makes prisoners worse! and more violent, how it's impossible for them too get jobs afterward and return to society. You used all these things as a point against rehabilitation when these are all the reasons why Iliad is right. The system is broken you basically said it yourself it makes criminals worse Rehabilitation makes criminals better its a different solution than just throwing them in a cell with equally messed up or worse criminal minds.

If that is what he was saying, then I misunderstood his words. My understanding of what he said was that instead of death row we put them in prison where they can be rehabilitated. I thought it was funny, since that's obviously not what happens.

If there was a good way to actually rehabilitate these people then I would be all for that. Unfortunately, I sure cannot think of one. To properly rehabilitate, you would need to get at the base problems causing the criminal behavior. What these base problems might be, are anyone's guess. I'm sure you have some ideas as to what they could be, as do I. But honestly, how could we be sure?

Then there are the people that there is no rehabilitation that would work. Pedophiles, serial rapists, sociopaths, serial killers, etc.

But it would be interesting to have a discussion regarding how we could properly rehabilitate the people incarcerated by the US gov't. I'm not sure that this thread is the proper place, perhaps a new thread can be started, or if noone cares, then we can do it here. So, what would you propose? How could we go about rehabilitating the prisoners instead of throwing them in prison where they get worse?

[InkL0sed]

So, if we're going to abolish the death penalty just because occasionally an innocent person gets put to death, we might as well abolish prison as well, because the same thing happens. Hell, let's just let all the murderers and rapists run free and not punish them at all just to be absolutely sure that no innocent people might ever be suspected for the crimes.

Here's a novel idea: justice. We punish and attempt to rehabilitate those who we convict and where there is reasonable doubt about the person's guilt, we do not convict them.

Hahaha...rehabilitate. Is that what you think happens in jail and prison? Prison is a school for criminals. Sure, some (read: a small minority) of people might "find" Jesus or Allah and truly repent and change their ways, but the majority are made into even bigger criminals. They learn bigger and better tricks of the trade and develop a mentality of survival that doesn't translate well into society. When they get out, they are worse off than before. For one, they are likely much more violent (assuming they weren't very violent to begin with) and not at all afraid to use that violence to get what they want (something that is regularly done in prison). Also, they get out and have a hell of a time finding employment, which fuels the cycle and drives them to commit more crime in order to even survive. And this is all assuming that the inmate wasn't already a gang member when they went in. If this is the case, then absolutely nothing changes, except they've had lots of time to beef up and practice their fighting skills.

Alright I'm not trying to blatantly troll you anymore, but are you aware that Iliad basically said that the system is broken and that we should be rehabilitating as a better solution and that you then replied by listing all the ways in which the current system fails? How it doesn't rehabilitate, how it makes prisoners worse! and more violent, how it's impossible for them too get jobs afterward and return to society. You used all these things as a point against rehabilitation when these are all the reasons why Iliad is right. The system is broken you basically said it yourself it makes criminals worse Rehabilitation makes criminals better its a different solution than just throwing them in a cell with equally messed up or worse criminal minds.

If that is what he was saying, then I misunderstood his words. My understanding of what he said was that instead of death row we put them in prison where they can be rehabilitated. I thought it was funny, since that's obviously not what happens.

If there was a good way to actually rehabilitate these people then I would be all for that. Unfortunately, I sure cannot think of one. To properly rehabilitate, you would need to get at the base problems causing the criminal behavior. What these base problems might be, are anyone's guess. I'm sure you have some ideas as to what they could be, as do I. But honestly, how could we be sure?

Then there are the people that there is no rehabilitation that would work. Pedophiles, serial rapists, sociopaths, serial killers, etc.

How can you be sure of that? Have you tried yourself? Looked at many studies recently, have you?

But it would be interesting to have a discussion regarding how we could properly rehabilitate the people incarcerated by the US gov't. I'm not sure that this thread is the proper place, perhaps a new thread can be started, or if noone cares, then we can do it here. So, what would you propose? How could we go about rehabilitating the prisoners instead of throwing them in prison where they get worse?

First, reduce the prison population by a) legalizing marijuana (and probably other drugs as well) and b) getting rid of private prisons. They should be run and built by the government. Overcrowding is a huge issue, and is basically the reason why prison gangs form.

Second, improve the quality of mental health care in the prisons. Criminals ultimately have psychological issues they need help with working out. Things like converting to Christianity should not be seen as a sign of reform; doctors' opinions should decide whether someone is rehabilitated or not.

As for murderers and rapists, especially serial ones, we should simply be a lot more careful about releasing them. I wouldn't expect most of the ones with life sentences to ever be considered rehabilitated enough to be released, but we and they can always hope.

Look, your arguments are entirely emotional. They are not logical. It doesn't matter what you feel about death. Supporting the death penalty is tantamount to saying, "I am OK with innocent people dying in my quest for revenge." Except your revenge solves nothing; the victim is still a victim. On top of that, now there are more innocent people dead for it.

As for your assertions about the vast majority of criminals on death row being guilty, there is so much wrong with that statement. Of course the vast majority are. But what if 10% aren't? How many innocent people is that? We need to be 100% accurate, or not do it at all.

[InkL0sed]

This is not to mention Texas' well-known willingness to execute the mentally disabled and minors.

[Woodruff]

but seriously, what if he was innocent?

If he was innocent, and that's a big if. He was convicted by a jury of his peers, so what's the big deal.

Wow. What's the big deal? Would you feel that way if it were your spouse? Your parent? Your child?

I would rather allow a very few guilty people to go free than to allow a very few innocent people to be put to death.

Sorry, but I'm pretty callous to death here lately. After a bunch of people I've known being murdered here lately, it seems not to bother me much anymore. Random, senseless death is part of this world. The sooner that's accepted the better. Then we can stop worrying about stupid crap like whether the latest inmate being executed might be innocent.

Unless it's your spouse, or parent, or child.

[Woodruff]

Given that severe punishment like the death penalty has a high uncertainty of actually being carried out plus the delay (to be killed), does a death penalty significantly reduce people's willingness to commit egregious crimes like first-degree murder and what not?

Not in my opinion, no.

[Iliad]

If having the death penalty, a mechanism by which the state can put to death those individuals who by their deeds have been deemed unworthy of life, means that occasionally an innocent person gets put to death, it's still worth it, to me at least.

I can argue about the use and effect of the death penalty, but that is another whole can of worms. This remains the main issue.Regardless of whether the state should have the right to deem people unworthy of life which we obviously also disagree on, the means to that conclusion must be completely fair and just. Otherwise you are advocating even more murders and loss of innocent life all for a meaningless cause of revenge and wanton punishment.
A government should strive to establish a safe and benevolent society, and executing the innocent is one of the worst acts it can commit.

Also, just because you don't see culture as a morally acceptable answer doesn't mean that somebody else doesn't. Remember that morals are quite subjective. Everbody has different morals. What is morally acceptable to one person may be evil personified to another. Take abortion, or prostitution, or the death penalty.

I do agree about subjective morality, and that ultimately this goes back to your quoted belief that you would rather innocents were executed with the guilty rather than let guilty free. However simply claiming "but that's the way we do things around here" is not a valid argument or justification.

I agree with you that when there is reasonable doubt that we do not convict, that is a part of our justice system. In this particular case, the guy was convicted by a jury of his peers. Could he have been wrongly convicted? Sure. Was he? Who knows. Does it ultimately matter? Not in the slightest.

Bison has already explained that I was showing that in essence the prison system is not working like it should and your example only corroborate that.
This, however I still fairly disturbed about. Yes, he was convicted by a jury, but it's clear that either some of his rights were refused or simply not told to him. And that renders the jury opinion void. If a man denied a lawyer but convicted, would you consider that verdict to be valid, since it was made a jury of his peers.
You do admit that this has created more than enough reasonable doubt but remain apathetic.

Besides, they're just people. Oh well if a few people die. People die every day. Does it ultimately matter if it's by natural causes, a car accident, a random gunshot, an IED, a prison yard shanking or lethal injection? No, it doesn't. Death is a part of life. Everyone dies. What's the big deal that the latest person to be executed by the state might be innocent? Most people who die are relatively innocent. It's just life. Deal with it.

Sorry, but I'm pretty callous to death here lately. After a bunch of people I've known being murdered here lately, it seems not to bother me much anymore. Random, senseless death is part of this world. The sooner that's accepted the better. Then we can stop worrying about stupid crap like whether the latest inmate being executed might be innocent.

If death is so irrelevant, why do we punish murderers in the first place? You do realise that your argument excuses and justifies any murder? Why would we punish the act, if the victim was going to die anyway?

But the state really should be somewhat more just and compassionate than your average serial killer. The fact that you see absolutely nothing wrong with the state executing the innocent fucking scares me.

No, my argument does not excuse murder. My argument is that it is ultimately pointless whether people live or die. Even though I believe that, I still think it is wrong to rape and murder people. When an individual rapes and murders someone, they are not only causing enormous suffering to the victim, but to the victim's family and friends. When the state puts somebody to death, it is because they did something equally heinous to an individual. These people do not deserve to live if they are going to go around raping and killing people. [/quote]
So despite your nihilist argument, you still consider basic crimes to be wrong. Thus the state-sanctioned murder should be at least equally morally reprehensible if it is done to an innocent. I would imagine that being falsely imprisoned for murder and executed by the state would cause just as much, if not more grief to the family and friends of the victim than a murder victim.
Murder is reprehensible but as you stated a fact of life, government execution of the innocent is a breach of its powers and the trust beholden to it by its people of the highest degree.

Do you see the difference? One is an individual taking it into his hands to end somebody's life for no real reason other than perhaps personal gratification or maybe in extreme cases survival. The other is the people that make up society coming together and stating that this behavior is unnacceptable and will be punished by death. The society is then putting those people to death. I agree that occasionally an innocent person may be wrongly put to death by this process, but for the most part, the people put to death are the people who should be put to death.

I see the difference, though both can be equally motivated by simple bloodlust or need for vengeance, even in the case of executing the guilty. Could you point out how the execution of an innocent man by the state, differs from a murder?

Per my argument, none of this matters in the grand scheme of things. But if we're all going to live in a society, then we should punish those who would commit such heinous acts against other people. And the best punishment is death. That way we know they will never again harm another person. The same cannot be said for putting them in prison.

As for you saying that I see nothing wrong with the state executing innocent people, that is untrue. It is lamentable that innocent people do occasionally get executed by accident, but if that is what it takes to ensure that the guilty are executed as well, then it is something that I can live with. Kinda like the whole "you can't make an omelete without breaking some eggs" thing.

And now I want to address the main issue: your perspective.It is at its ethical core contradictory.
You feel that the loss of innocent life is such a grave act that no-one responsible can go unpunished, but you flippantly dismiss the same loss of innocent life when it is done by the state. You hypocritically try to establish the sanctity of life as of utmost importance when a murder is commited, but of no grave concern when a state carries out the murder itself. If the loss of innocent life is so despicable, then surely it must take priority over the need for vengeance. Your perspective is based on a clear double standard and your position cannot stand on ethical legs, only utilitarian and I'll get to that.

As far as my views scaring you, oh well. I've long since quit giving a flying f*ck what anybody thinks about me. And it's not like you have to worry anyway, I'm in no position of power. These are just the veiws of a (somewhat) warped individual that doesn't really value human life or humans in general. I have some rather unorthodox views concerning death, humanity, things of that nature. It's ok, I know not everybody thinks like I do. What can I say, I'm a nihilist and a misanthrope. But I still think murderers and rapists should be put to death, because the suffering that their acts produce has an enormous impact on the lives of the people around the victims.

And what if the victim was not well-liked? Was reclusive and had no friends or family? Under your justification the need to deliver justice is based on the demands of grief . And that's the other main problem. Justice should not be dictated by the emotional needs of vengeance and revenge-fantasies of those hurt by crimes. That's what you are proposing and justice is being compromised. I am sorry for your losses that you have endured, but grief is not sufficient justification for murder.

One is an individual taking it into his hands to end somebody's life for no real reason other than perhaps personal gratification

As you yourself put it, personal gratification is not enough.
When justice is compromised for the sake of accommodating grief, it is only self-defeating and creates a dangerous precedent and creates more grief and pain.

Ethically your demands are contradictory, the only remaining belief is a strictly emotionless one where the means justify the end, even though the innocent will be executed, more will be saved by the deaths of murderers. This however is also a perversion of justice and is no different from the government pre-emptively murdering those that it feel might murder. Don't know about you, but I do not want my government to wield that power. One where it can conclude that even if there isn't enough conclusive evidence that you are guilty, it should execute you anyway because you might commit future crimes.

tl:dr Your perspective is wrong in both a moral and utilitarian sense. In my own, humble subjective point of view.

[tkr4lf]

Alright I'm not trying to blatantly troll you anymore, but are you aware that Iliad basically said that the system is broken and that we should be rehabilitating as a better solution and that you then replied by listing all the ways in which the current system fails? How it doesn't rehabilitate, how it makes prisoners worse! and more violent, how it's impossible for them too get jobs afterward and return to society. You used all these things as a point against rehabilitation when these are all the reasons why Iliad is right. The system is broken you basically said it yourself it makes criminals worse Rehabilitation makes criminals better its a different solution than just throwing them in a cell with equally messed up or worse criminal minds.

If that is what he was saying, then I misunderstood his words. My understanding of what he said was that instead of death row we put them in prison where they can be rehabilitated. I thought it was funny, since that's obviously not what happens.

If there was a good way to actually rehabilitate these people then I would be all for that. Unfortunately, I sure cannot think of one. To properly rehabilitate, you would need to get at the base problems causing the criminal behavior. What these base problems might be, are anyone's guess. I'm sure you have some ideas as to what they could be, as do I. But honestly, how could we be sure?

Then there are the people that there is no rehabilitation that would work. Pedophiles, serial rapists, sociopaths, serial killers, etc.

How can you be sure of that? Have you tried yourself? Looked at many studies recently, have you?

Have I tried what myself? Have I tried raping someone, having sex with a kid, or murdering someone? No, I have not.

Look, from everything I've ever read, heard, seen or learned in class, there is no "cure", or rehabilitation, for a pedophile, a serial killer, a sociopath, or a serial rapist.

To "cure" a pedophile would be like trying to "cure" a homosexual. Pedophiles are just like homosexuals and heterosexuals in that they don't choose to like little kids, they just do. Just like a hetero just likes the members of the opposite sex, or a homo just likes members of the same sex, a pedo just likes little kids. They are sexually attracted to little kids. There is nothing "curable" about that. The best we could hope for with them is abstinence.

It's a pretty widely accepted fact in the field of Psychology/Psychiatry that there is no cure for sociopathy/psychopathy. It is a personality disorder, and there is no real way to "fix" it.

Serial killers and serial rapists, I suppose again we could hope for abstinence, but they have a drive to do these things. Something inside them makes them want to go out and kill or rape people. That's why they do it many, many times. Hence the word "serial". I've never heard of or read of a cure for this, either.

But it would be interesting to have a discussion regarding how we could properly rehabilitate the people incarcerated by the US gov't. I'm not sure that this thread is the proper place, perhaps a new thread can be started, or if noone cares, then we can do it here. So, what would you propose? How could we go about rehabilitating the prisoners instead of throwing them in prison where they get worse?

First, reduce the prison population by a) legalizing marijuana (and probably other drugs as well) and b) getting rid of private prisons. They should be run and built by the government. Overcrowding is a huge issue, and is basically the reason why prison gangs form.

Second, improve the quality of mental health care in the prisons. Criminals ultimately have psychological issues they need help with working out. Things like converting to Christianity should not be seen as a sign of reform; doctors' opinions should decide whether someone is rehabilitated or not.
As for murderers and rapists, especially serial ones, we should simply be a lot more careful about releasing them. I wouldn't expect most of the ones with life sentences to ever be considered rehabilitated enough to be released, but we and they can always hope.

Look, your arguments are entirely emotional. They are not logical. It doesn't matter what you feel about death. Supporting the death penalty is tantamount to saying, "I am OK with innocent people dying in my quest for revenge." Except your revenge solves nothing; the victim is still a victim. On top of that, now there are more innocent people dead for it.

As for your assertions about the vast majority of criminals on death row being guilty, there is so much wrong with that statement. Of course the vast majority are. But what if 10% aren't? How many innocent people is that? We need to be 100% accurate, or not do it at all.

As for the underlined, that's not what we're talking about. TBK said that we should quit throwing them in cells with equally horrible people and find a way to rehabilitate them. You're just listing ways to improve prison. Note that I agree with you that those changes would do wonders with the prison system. Especially getting rid of non-violent drug offenders. I also agree about the mental health thing. While not the same as prison by any means, I recently had a visit in jail. In an informational handout regarding incarceratino and mental illness, I read that somewhere along the lines of 70% of all inmates have some form of mental illness. Obviously it is a problem that needs to be addressed.

As for murderers and rapists, especially serial ones, they should never be released. Well, in most cases. In all cases for rape. There are some instances where murder is done for a reason that is somewhat justifiable. There are no reasons that are justifiable to rape someone. But anybody who murders someone in cold blood, should stay locked up. From everything I've ever heard, it only get's easier to kill after doing it the first time. Why let these people back out into society?

And no, my argument isn't entirely emotional. I will admit that there is some emotion in me when I type this stuff up. Hell, just recently, in the past 3 weeks, a close family friend was murdered. He was shot in the neck 4 times by an Asian gang member while walking to his car. Completely unprovoked. The gangmember was in the military too. Unfortunately, this didn't happen in Texas, so I'm not sure if the guy will get the death penalty or not, although he deserves it. (Yes, they caught the guy. Here is the link to an article about it if anyone is interested.) So sure there will be some emotion from me on this topic. But I am actually thinking about this stuff as well. These are my actual views. Not just a reaction against recent events. I've held these views for quite a while. And just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it illogical.

You say that I'm ok with innocent people dying in MY quest for revenge. I will admit I am ok with a few innocent people dying if it means that the people who truly deserve to be put to death by the state can be. Yeah, I said it. Oh well. However, I don't see how it could be my quest for revenge. If anything, it's society's quest for revenge. These laws were written by the government, not me. Society as a whole said that these crimes are absolutely unacceptable and if you do them then you will be put to death. Yeah, it can be seen as revenge. It can also be seen as justice. An eye for an eye, if you will. Yeah, yeah, I know, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Maybe the world would better off if we were all blind. Either way, I know that the mom of my friend who was recently murdered wanted nothing more then to kill the bastard that took her 20 year old son (on the night of his birthday, and the night of father's day, no less)from her. At least if the state does it, then there is no vigilatism involved. The state steps up and takes care of the matter.

This is not to mention Texas' well-known willingness to execute the mentally disabled and minors.

As for this....I personally do not know of any mentally disabled people who have been put to death, but if they murder people or rape people, then why is that unacceptable? But it's not like the way you people make it sound. You make it sound as if Texas goes around collecting mentally disabled people and executing them simply because they are mentally disabled. I'm pretty sure a serious crime would have to committed before a mentally disabled person would be executed.

And a minor can do the exact same crime as an adult. Just because somebody is 15 or 16 and murders someone doesn't mean they should be treated differently from someone who is 18 or 19 and murders someone.

[Johnny Rockets]

Pedophiles cannot be rehabilitated, neither can sociopaths.
If anyone can find some respectable studies proving otherwise, I'd really like to view them.

The problem with Iliad, Woody, Bison, and Inky, is that they have this slippery slope fear of setting precedent.

"If we start killing all the bad people, then we will could become bad people, and then we'll slowly start killing everyone who we think is a bad person,and no one will be safe from ourselves.

I'd rather we spend the funds required to house death row criminals on victim services, to ensure THOSE people and their families get the therapy, supports, and help to integrate their lives back into productive society.

Does the justice system need revamping? Absolutely. Do innocents get wrongly convicted? Yes they do. Do innocents get put to death? Very few, but yes.
But the current system is all we have. Spending millions housing DR's for 15+ years is irresponsible to the law abiding citizens.
Trying to rehabilitate a serial rapist so we can put ourselves to bed at night with a lily white conscious is selfish.
Just ask the next victims families.

-Death penalty's should be carried out 12 months after sentencing.
-Revenge is a part of human nature, and it's a natural response to remove a threat from your social group. Stop being ashamed of it.
-You can't save every idiot who makes poor choices and wasn't raised right.
-The life of a pedophile, or sociopath with criminal intentions is not worth the trauma or life of one victim.

Stop trying to prove to yourself that you require to be such a moralistic high-ground seeking pillar of the human race with your self righteous convictions of the sanctity of the lives of ALL humans. We are not all equal. We are created so perhaps, but our choices then either elevate, or lower us beyond the bar of humanity.

Johnny Rockets

[The Bison King]

As for murderers and rapists, especially serial ones, they should never be released. Well, in most cases. In all cases for rape. There are some instances where murder is done for a reason that is somewhat justifiable. There are no reasons that are justifiable to rape someone. But anybody who murders someone in cold blood, should stay locked up. From everything I've ever heard, it only get's easier to kill after doing it the first time. Why let these people back out into society?

So murder is more justifiable than rape now? I mean both are bad but at least the rape victim lives. If I took a girl 40 miles out of town would you rather I kill her than rape her?

And no, my argument isn't entirely emotional. I will admit that there is some emotion in me when I type this stuff up. Hell, just recently, in the past 3 weeks, a close family friend was murdered. He was shot in the neck 4 times by an Asian gang member while walking to his car. Completely unprovoked. The gangmember was in the military too. Unfortunately, this didn't happen in Texas, so I'm not sure if the guy will get the death penalty or not, although he deserves it. (Yes, they caught the guy. Here is the link to an article about it if anyone is interested.) So sure there will be some emotion from me on this topic. But I am actually thinking about this stuff as well. These are my actual views. Not just a reaction against recent events. I've held these views for quite a while. And just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it illogical.

Well I'm sorry for your loss but the fact that there are gangs and murder all around you all the time should only serve as a constant reminder that the death penalty fails as a deterrent from crime.

You say that I'm ok with innocent people dying in MY quest for revenge. I will admit I am ok with a few innocent people dying if it means that the people who truly deserve to be put to death by the state can be. Yeah, I said it. Oh well. However, I don't see how it could be my quest for revenge. If anything, it's society's quest for revenge. These laws were written by the government, not me. Society as a whole said that these crimes are absolutely unacceptable and if you do them then you will be put to death. Yeah, it can be seen as revenge. It can also be seen as justice. An eye for an eye, if you will. Yeah, yeah, I know, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Maybe the world would better off if we were all blind. Either way, I know that the mom of my friend who was recently murdered wanted nothing more then to kill the bastard that took her 20 year old son (on the night of his birthday, and the night of father's day, no less)from her. At least if the state does it, then there is no vigilatism involved. The state steps up and takes care of the matter.

You seem to be arguing with yourself in this paragraph. You seem to recognize that it doesn't make sense with the whole "eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" statement, but you let it slide because you can you can justify it by calling revenge justice. Everything else in your paragraph cries out for vengeance especially the last sentence. It's like your letting your brain recognizes that it doesn't add up but your heart enables your mind to rationalize it for you.

As for the underlined, that's not what we're talking about. TBK said that we should quit throwing them in cells with equally horrible people and find a way to rehabilitate them. You're just listing ways to improve prison. Note that I agree with you that those changes would do wonders with the prison system. Especially getting rid of non-violent drug offenders. I also agree about the mental health thing. While not the same as prison by any means, I recently had a visit in jail. In an informational handout regarding incarceratino and mental illness, I read that somewhere along the lines of 70% of all inmates have some form of mental illness. Obviously it is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Well sort of the idea is to make prisons better. On top of getting rid of all the people who simply don't belong there the prison would be more like a really nice mental hospital (that you can't leave) People would be given individual care from state paid psychologists that try to get to the root of each cell mates problem. Certainly some criminals would be incapable of rehabilitation but they would be held for life.

Now the problem with this (and I know there is one) is that this would be enormously expensive to give each criminal the kind of specialized care need to properly return them to society.

To "cure" a pedophile would be like trying to "cure" a homosexual. Pedophiles are just like homosexuals and heterosexuals in that they don't choose to like little kids, they just do. Just like a hetero just likes the members of the opposite sex, or a homo just likes members of the same sex, a pedo just likes little kids. They are sexually attracted to little kids. There is nothing "curable" about that. The best we could hope for with them is abstinence.

I'm not so sure. I think it's entirely possible that there can be psychological trauma's or events that can make someone into a pedo. For example someone who was molested at a young age represses the memory and develops a severe mental disorder that causes him to copy the behavior later in life.

Serial killers and serial rapists, I suppose again we could hope for abstinence, but they have a drive to do these things. Something inside them makes them want to go out and kill or rape people. That's why they do it many, many times. Hence the word "serial". I've never heard of or read of a cure for this, either.

That "something inside of them" is how you cure it. You find out what it is and try and pull it out. Of course in most cases of serial murderers it's probably impossible. Even if it wasn't how do you return to society with the guilt of killing 23 people and wearing their skin?

[keiths31]

What are the murder rates like is states with and without the death penalty? A quick Google and I see Canada has a murder rate of 1.5/100,000, whereas the USA has a murder rate of 5.9/100,000. Now we don't have the death penalty in Canada and our gun laws are a lot more restricted...and we kill each other less. We are closer culturally with each other than any other country, but yet we murder people at a different rate. (Figures from 2004-2205) Why?
I am conservative in my political leanings, and as much as I wish some of our murderers could be put to death, I just don't see it being the right thing to do. There have been quite a few high profile cases in Canada where the wrong person was convicted and spent 20+ years in prison for a murder they did not commit. Killing them and then fining out there were innocent would have sucked. Having them alive and finding out was a much better outcome...

[Night Strike]

keiths, what is the gang rate up there in Canada? I don't know those numbers for either country, but I think it's safe to say that we have more gangs in the US. And with gangs comes an increase in crimes, especially violent crimes. Similar with drug dealers here in the US. And most of these criminals aren't going to adhere to stricter gun laws anyway: only the people who already follow the laws would be the ones to follow and be harmed by stricter gun laws.

[The Bison King]

I think it's needless to say that there a lot of other factors going into the differing crime rates between the US and Canada than the death penalty.

[PLAYER57832]

I heard about this on the radio. The point that hasn't been emphasized is that the federal government has no control over Texas. They've asked for a repeal and Texas denied them....

edit: oh wait, you did mention that.

yep, welcome to the independent state of Texas.. and we wonder how we got the Bushes?

[saxitoxin]

What are the murder rates like is states with and without the death penalty? A quick Google and I see Canada has a murder rate of 1.5/100,000, whereas the USA has a murder rate of 5.9/100,000. Now we don't have the death penalty in Canada and our gun laws are a lot more restricted...and we kill each other less. We are closer culturally with each other than any other country, but yet we murder people at a different rate.

Yet the overall crime rate in Canada is higher than that of the US.

• IOW, you're twice as likely to be raped, stabbed and beaten to within an inch of your life in Canada than the US.
  
  But, if it happens in the US, it's 5 times more likely they'll finish the job.

Outside of the statistically rare - but publicity common - crime of murder, the U.S. has one of the lowest crime rates in the western world.

Liberalization of gun laws invariably increases the homicide rate but depresses the rates of other crimes. Gun restrictions invariably depresses the homicide rate but increases rates of other crimes. (Comparing Canada vs. UK [where gun laws in the UK are more restrictive than Canada] shows this trend to hold true, where the UK has essentially become a real world Clockwork Orange - the Mexico of Europe - in every way, except for a low homicide rate; see - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... a-U-S.html)

[tkr4lf]

If having the death penalty, a mechanism by which the state can put to death those individuals who by their deeds have been deemed unworthy of life, means that occasionally an innocent person gets put to death, it's still worth it, to me at least.

I can argue about the use and effect of the death penalty, but that is another whole can of worms. This remains the main issue.Regardless of whether the state should have the right to deem people unworthy of life which we obviously also disagree on, the means to that conclusion must be completely fair and just. Otherwise you are advocating even more murders and loss of innocent life all for a meaningless cause of revenge and wanton punishment.
A government should strive to establish a safe and benevolent society, and executing the innocent is one of the worst acts it can commit.

I would agree that executing the innocent a reprehensible crime. But if the execution of a few innocent people, by accident, means that the people who deserve execution get it, then it is worth it, to me. I don't know how else I can put this.

Also, just because you don't see culture as a morally acceptable answer doesn't mean that somebody else doesn't. Remember that morals are quite subjective. Everbody has different morals. What is morally acceptable to one person may be evil personified to another. Take abortion, or prostitution, or the death penalty.

I do agree about subjective morality, and that ultimately this goes back to your quoted belief that you would rather innocents were executed with the guilty rather than let guilty free. However simply claiming "but that's the way we do things around here" is not a valid argument or justification.

But it sort of is. You cannot judge other cultures using the morals of your culture. It would be like traveling to a small island in the Pacific and finding a tribe of cannibals. Sure, you would think that it is wrong, based on the morals of your society. To them, cannibalism is a perfectly natural part of life. This is an extreme example. Another example would be judging the acts of the people of the 15th century by the moral standards of today. It doesn't work. Now I'm not saying that Texas' culture is so different from the rest of the US, but we do have a bit of a culture all our own, political and otherwise.

I agree with you that when there is reasonable doubt that we do not convict, that is a part of our justice system. In this particular case, the guy was convicted by a jury of his peers. Could he have been wrongly convicted? Sure. Was he? Who knows. Does it ultimately matter? Not in the slightest.

Bison has already explained that I was showing that in essence the prison system is not working like it should and your example only corroborate that.
This, however I still fairly disturbed about. Yes, he was convicted by a jury, but it's clear that either some of his rights were refused or simply not told to him. And that renders the jury opinion void. If a man denied a lawyer but convicted, would you consider that verdict to be valid, since it was made a jury of his peers.
You do admit that this has created more than enough reasonable doubt but remain apathetic.

Like I said in response to TBK's post, I misunderstood what you were saying. So that is my bad. But about his trial, all he was denied the knowledge of was that he could contact his government. What would that have changed? He would have got a Mexican lawyer instead of an American one? I fail to see the big deal here. As bruceswar already pointed out previously (which I think some of you must have missed), the Supreme Court of the US ruled against this man's stay of execution. The highest court in our land ruled in favor of this man being executed. I think that pretty much closes the door on whether THIS particular case was handled wrongly. In THIS case, I do not think there was reasonable doubt.

If there was reasonable doubt, then he should not have been convicted. But, sometimes, juries do make mistakes. They are humans, afterall. Emotions can sway things a certain way even when there may be reasonable doubt. That is a shortcoming of our justice system, really of human nature, but it is no reason to abolish the death penalty or prison for that matter. Unfortunately, until a better, more reasonable and more cost-effective solution can be presented, prison is the only answer. And the death penalty should remain part of the equation. It may not dissuade people from commiting those horrible crimes, but at least they can be properly punished for doing so.

Besides, they're just people. Oh well if a few people die. People die every day. Does it ultimately matter if it's by natural causes, a car accident, a random gunshot, an IED, a prison yard shanking or lethal injection? No, it doesn't. Death is a part of life. Everyone dies. What's the big deal that the latest person to be executed by the state might be innocent? Most people who die are relatively innocent. It's just life. Deal with it.

Sorry, but I'm pretty callous to death here lately. After a bunch of people I've known being murdered here lately, it seems not to bother me much anymore. Random, senseless death is part of this world. The sooner that's accepted the better. Then we can stop worrying about stupid crap like whether the latest inmate being executed might be innocent.

If death is so irrelevant, why do we punish murderers in the first place? You do realise that your argument excuses and justifies any murder? Why would we punish the act, if the victim was going to die anyway?

But the state really should be somewhat more just and compassionate than your average serial killer. The fact that you see absolutely nothing wrong with the state executing the innocent fucking scares me.

No, my argument does not excuse murder. My argument is that it is ultimately pointless whether people live or die. Even though I believe that, I still think it is wrong to rape and murder people. When an individual rapes and murders someone, they are not only causing enormous suffering to the victim, but to the victim's family and friends. When the state puts somebody to death, it is because they did something equally heinous to an individual. These people do not deserve to live if they are going to go around raping and killing people.

So despite your nihilist argument, you still consider basic crimes to be wrong. Thus the state-sanctioned murder should be at least equally morally reprehensible if it is done to an innocent. I would imagine that being falsely imprisoned for murder and executed by the state would cause just as much, if not more grief to the family and friends of the victim than a murder victim.
Murder is reprehensible but as you stated a fact of life, government execution of the innocent is a breach of its powers and the trust beholden to it by its people of the highest degree.

I don't think murder and rape qualify as "basic" crimes. A basic crime would be shoplifting, jaywalking, speeding, etc. Murder and rape are the worst possible crimes one could commit. I will admit, as I have already, that when an innocent is put to death by the state, it is wrong. Unfortunately, it is something that must happen in order to get the ones who actually deserve it. The percentage of those executed that are actually innocent is quite low. Does it suck? Yeah, it does suck. But is it worth abolishing the whole death penalty just to save a few people? No, it isn't. Becuase that would mean the people who deserve to die get to live out their lives in prison instead.

Do you see the difference? One is an individual taking it into his hands to end somebody's life for no real reason other than perhaps personal gratification or maybe in extreme cases survival. The other is the people that make up society coming together and stating that this behavior is unnacceptable and will be punished by death. The society is then putting those people to death. I agree that occasionally an innocent person may be wrongly put to death by this process, but for the most part, the people put to death are the people who should be put to death.

I see the difference, though both can be equally motivated by simple bloodlust or need for vengeance, even in the case of executing the guilty. Could you point out how the execution of an innocent man by the state, differs from a murder?

The main difference I see in murder and the execution of an innocent person, by accident, on death row is that one is commited by an individual, for personal reasons, the other is commited by the state justice system, for reasons of punishment. That the punishment is occasionally (read: rarely) wrong, and an innocent person accidentally gets put to death, is no reason to abolish it entirely.

Per my argument, none of this matters in the grand scheme of things. But if we're all going to live in a society, then we should punish those who would commit such heinous acts against other people. And the best punishment is death. That way we know they will never again harm another person. The same cannot be said for putting them in prison.

As for you saying that I see nothing wrong with the state executing innocent people, that is untrue. It is lamentable that innocent people do occasionally get executed by accident, but if that is what it takes to ensure that the guilty are executed as well, then it is something that I can live with. Kinda like the whole "you can't make an omelete without breaking some eggs" thing.

And now I want to address the main issue: your perspective.It is at its ethical core contradictory.
You feel that the loss of innocent life is such a grave act that no-one responsible can go unpunished, but you flippantly dismiss the same loss of innocent life when it is done by the state. You hypocritically try to establish the sanctity of life as of utmost importance when a murder is commited, but of no grave concern when a state carries out the murder itself. If the loss of innocent life is so despicable, then surely it must take priority over the need for vengeance. Your perspective is based on a clear double standard and your position cannot stand on ethical legs, only utilitarian and I'll get to that.

I will concede to this. My position on this is probably contradictory and hypocritic. But it is what I think and feel about the issue. I will argue though that I set no importance on the sanctity of life. Life comes and goes as it will. Murder is reprehensible to me becuase of the harm it causes to the victim's loved ones and, arguably, to the state. It's not necessarily the loss of innocent life, it's the taking of an innocent life. I'm not sure that I'm making sense/getting my point across here. I see a difference between the two. I see a person taking life as bad, while I see the state taking life, if through the legal means of capital punishment, as good. If an rare innocent person gets thrown into the mix through a combination of poor policework, poor lawyering, corruption, ineptitude, well, I'm sorry, that sucks, but it's a necessary thing in order to ensure that the guilty also get what they deserve. That's my point of view anyway.

As far as my views scaring you, oh well. I've long since quit giving a flying f*ck what anybody thinks about me. And it's not like you have to worry anyway, I'm in no position of power. These are just the veiws of a (somewhat) warped individual that doesn't really value human life or humans in general. I have some rather unorthodox views concerning death, humanity, things of that nature. It's ok, I know not everybody thinks like I do. What can I say, I'm a nihilist and a misanthrope. But I still think murderers and rapists should be put to death, because the suffering that their acts produce has an enormous impact on the lives of the people around the victims.

And what if the victim was not well-liked? Was reclusive and had no friends or family? Under your justification the need to deliver justice is based on the demands of grief . And that's the other main problem. Justice should not be dictated by the emotional needs of vengeance and revenge-fantasies of those hurt by crimes. That's what you are proposing and justice is being compromised. I am sorry for your losses that you have endured, but grief is not sufficient justification for murder.

Not entirely. I don't think that grief and the pain caused by murder are the reasons it should be punished. I find those to be the reasons why murder/rape is so reprehensible. The reasons I think it should be punished are to remove that person from society. Remove them so that they cannot do anything like that again. Whether the victim is loved or not should not matter. I don't think justice should be dictated based on needs of vengeance or emotion. It should be dictated by the state. That should be one of the main functions of the state...the justice system.

One is an individual taking it into his hands to end somebody's life for no real reason other than perhaps personal gratification

As you yourself put it, personal gratification is not enough.
When justice is compromised for the sake of accommodating grief, it is only self-defeating and creates a dangerous precedent and creates more grief and pain.

Ethically your demands are contradictory, the only remaining belief is a strictly emotionless one where the means justify the end, even though the innocent will be executed, more will be saved by the deaths of murderers. This however is also a perversion of justice and is no different from the government pre-emptively murdering those that it feel might murder. Don't know about you, but I do not want my government to wield that power. One where it can conclude that even if there isn't enough conclusive evidence that you are guilty, it should execute you anyway because you might commit future crimes.

tl:dr Your perspective is wrong in both a moral and utilitarian sense. In my own, humble subjective point of view.

Personal gratification isn't enough. However, I don't think that execution only serves the personal gratification of the family/friends of the victim. It also serves a true purpose. The purpose is to ensure that these people will never again do what they have done. They will never again be able to kill or rape people. That is a service to society. To remove these people from existence benefits society as it does the loved ones of the victims. That last part is subjective, because I know from stories that it does little to remove the grief of losing a loved one to see the perpetrator executed, but still, knowing that they can never again harm somebody is at least something.

As far as the ends justifying the means...yeah, I would say that in this case the ends do justify the means. I don't believe that in all cases the ends justify the means, but in this case, most certainly they do.

I would not like to see a government that can preemptively imprison/execute people either. I do not see how any of this would lead to that, though.

I respect your opinion that my perspective is wrong, but it does little to change said perspective. According to my own moral code, my perspective is right. Thankfully, I am in no position to implement my perspective on the rest of the world. Even I see that my views would not be good for the whole of society. I have already admitted that they are most likely warped/skewed by the circumstances of my life...but these are my views, and likely nothing will change them. It's interesting debating them though.

[Woodruff]

Pedophiles cannot be rehabilitated, neither can sociopaths.
If anyone can find some respectable studies proving otherwise, I'd really like to view them.

The problem with Iliad, Woody, Bison, and Inky, is that they have this slippery slope fear of setting precedent.

What? There is no slipperly slope at all. It's a simple matter of logic...if you don't kill someone, they can at least be set free when it's found that they were innocent. If you kill someone, you cannot bring them back to life. That's all there is to it, as far as I'm concerned. It's not a slippery slope in any way...it's quite frankly black and white.

But the current system is all we have.

No, it really isn't...or at the least, it does not need to be.

Spending millions housing DR's for 15+ years is irresponsible to the law abiding citizens.

Irresponsible to the law abiding citizens who are wrongly executed?

Trying to rehabilitate a serial rapist so we can put ourselves to bed at night with a lily white conscious is selfish.

Don't lump me in with the rehabilitating everyone group...I recognize that not every condition can be fixed with rehabilitation.

-You can't save every idiot who makes poor choices and wasn't raised right.

I'd like to save the non-idiots who are innocent.

-The life of a pedophile, or sociopath with criminal intentions is not worth the trauma or life of one victim.

"The life of one victim"...what about the victim of the wrongful execution? What about that one life?

[tkr4lf]

I heard about this on the radio. The point that hasn't been emphasized is that the federal government has no control over Texas. They've asked for a repeal and Texas denied them....

edit: oh wait, you did mention that.

yep, welcome to the independent state of Texas.. and we wonder how we got the Bushes?

Did you not see bruceswar's post about how the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ruled against this man's stay of execution? That completely absolves the State of Texas from any wrongdoing here. The hightest court in the land agreed that this person should be executed. Case closed.

[Woodruff]

keiths, what is the gang rate up there in Canada? I don't know those numbers for either country, but I think it's safe to say that we have more gangs in the US. And with gangs comes an increase in crimes, especially violent crimes. Similar with drug dealers here in the US.

All of which is created almost exclusively by the War on Drugs.

[tkr4lf]

As for murderers and rapists, especially serial ones, they should never be released. Well, in most cases. In all cases for rape. There are some instances where murder is done for a reason that is somewhat justifiable. There are no reasons that are justifiable to rape someone. But anybody who murders someone in cold blood, should stay locked up. From everything I've ever heard, it only get's easier to kill after doing it the first time. Why let these people back out into society?

So murder is more justifiable than rape now? I mean both are bad but at least the rape victim lives. If I took a girl 40 miles out of town would you rather I kill her than rape her?

I said nothing like that. I said that "there are some instances where murder is done for a reason that is somewhat justifiable." (Emphasis added)

The instances I speak of are self-defense, killing the person who raped/killed your mom, etc. Now, I am not condoning vigilantism, but it is somewhat justifiable. Not a reason to get off scott free...but something to be taken into consideration when sentencing/judging.

Personally, I'd rather you just didn't take a girl 40 miles out of town with the intention of harming her in any way. Neither raping her nor murdering her is the preferable choice.

I think you either misunderstood what I was saying, or are purposefully twisting my words. I think and hope that it is the former and not the latter.

And no, my argument isn't entirely emotional. I will admit that there is some emotion in me when I type this stuff up. Hell, just recently, in the past 3 weeks, a close family friend was murdered. He was shot in the neck 4 times by an Asian gang member while walking to his car. Completely unprovoked. The gangmember was in the military too. Unfortunately, this didn't happen in Texas, so I'm not sure if the guy will get the death penalty or not, although he deserves it. (Yes, they caught the guy. Here is the link to an article about it if anyone is interested.) So sure there will be some emotion from me on this topic. But I am actually thinking about this stuff as well. These are my actual views. Not just a reaction against recent events. I've held these views for quite a while. And just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it illogical.

Well I'm sorry for your loss but the fact that there are gangs and murder all around you all the time should only serve as a constant reminder that the death penalty fails as a deterrent from crime.

Of course the death penalty fails as a deterrent for crime, but so does prison. So will anything that can be concieved of to prevent it. The reasons for crime are numerous, and as I've heard many times, it's only a crime if you get caught. Nothing will prevent people from doing what they truly want/need to do. The best we can hope for is to have systems in place to properly punish these people. And there is no higher punishment than death. That ensures that they will never commit a crime again.

You say that I'm ok with innocent people dying in MY quest for revenge. I will admit I am ok with a few innocent people dying if it means that the people who truly deserve to be put to death by the state can be. Yeah, I said it. Oh well. However, I don't see how it could be my quest for revenge. If anything, it's society's quest for revenge. These laws were written by the government, not me. Society as a whole said that these crimes are absolutely unacceptable and if you do them then you will be put to death. Yeah, it can be seen as revenge. It can also be seen as justice. An eye for an eye, if you will. Yeah, yeah, I know, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Maybe the world would better off if we were all blind. Either way, I know that the mom of my friend who was recently murdered wanted nothing more then to kill the bastard that took her 20 year old son (on the night of his birthday, and the night of father's day, no less)from her. At least if the state does it, then there is no vigilatism involved. The state steps up and takes care of the matter.

You seem to be arguing with yourself in this paragraph. You seem to recognize that it doesn't make sense with the whole "eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" statement, but you let it slide because you can you can justify it by calling revenge justice. Everything else in your paragraph cries out for vengeance especially the last sentence. It's like your letting your brain recognizes that it doesn't add up but your heart enables your mind to rationalize it for you.

Maybe I am arguing with myself. I don't know. Not that it particularly matters anyway. And I don't think it "cries out for vengeance". It cries out for justice. There is a difference.

As for the underlined, that's not what we're talking about. TBK said that we should quit throwing them in cells with equally horrible people and find a way to rehabilitate them. You're just listing ways to improve prison. Note that I agree with you that those changes would do wonders with the prison system. Especially getting rid of non-violent drug offenders. I also agree about the mental health thing. While not the same as prison by any means, I recently had a visit in jail. In an informational handout regarding incarceratino and mental illness, I read that somewhere along the lines of 70% of all inmates have some form of mental illness. Obviously it is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Well sort of the idea is to make prisons better. On top of getting rid of all the people who simply don't belong there the prison would be more like a really nice mental hospital (that you can't leave) People would be given individual care from state paid psychologists that try to get to the root of each cell mates problem. Certainly some criminals would be incapable of rehabilitation but they would be held for life.

Now the problem with this (and I know there is one) is that this would be enormously expensive to give each criminal the kind of specialized care need to properly return them to society.

I agree with you on these ways to improve the prison system. And in a perfect world, they would be implemented no matter the cost. But this is far from a perfect world, and as you admit, the cost would be enormous. Instead of focusing on what could be or should be, we should focus on what is.

To "cure" a pedophile would be like trying to "cure" a homosexual. Pedophiles are just like homosexuals and heterosexuals in that they don't choose to like little kids, they just do. Just like a hetero just likes the members of the opposite sex, or a homo just likes members of the same sex, a pedo just likes little kids. They are sexually attracted to little kids. There is nothing "curable" about that. The best we could hope for with them is abstinence.

I'm not so sure. I think it's entirely possible that there can be psychological trauma's or events that can make someone into a pedo. For example someone who was molested at a young age represses the memory and develops a severe mental disorder that causes him to copy the behavior later in life.

Here I completely disagree with you. Pedophiles are not created any more than homosexuals or heterosexuals are created. People are born that way. There is no changing that. And from what I've learned, past psychological trauma involving molestation/sexual abuse leads to one of two things, complete abstinence from sexual encounters of any kind, or utter and complete promiscuity in sexual matters. I've never heard of it leading to pedophilia. Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree on this one, because we each seem to have our minds made up on this matter.

Serial killers and serial rapists, I suppose again we could hope for abstinence, but they have a drive to do these things. Something inside them makes them want to go out and kill or rape people. That's why they do it many, many times. Hence the word "serial". I've never heard of or read of a cure for this, either.

That "something inside of them" is how you cure it. You find out what it is and try and pull it out. Of course in most cases of serial murderers it's probably impossible. Even if it wasn't how do you return to society with the guilt of killing 23 people and wearing their skin?

Well, exactly, how could you return to society and be a normal, functioning person after raping or killing 20 something people? But I still posit that there is no cure for it. That "something inside them" is elusive, not only to psychiatrists/counselors, but to themselves as well. Perhaps with a lifetime of psychoanalysis it could be found, but ask yourself, is it really worth all the time, effort and money to try to "cure" these people? These people that rape and murder just for the fun of it?

[Bruceswar]

I heard about this on the radio. The point that hasn't been emphasized is that the federal government has no control over Texas. They've asked for a repeal and Texas denied them....

edit: oh wait, you did mention that.

yep, welcome to the independent state of Texas.. and we wonder how we got the Bushes?

Did you not see bruceswar's post about how the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ruled against this man's stay of execution? That completely absolves the State of Texas from any wrongdoing here. The hightest court in the land agreed that this person should be executed. Case closed.

No ofc they skipped right over the facts and are only hearing and seeing what they want. Shame on them.

[Bruceswar]

Another sad event for Texas.

And I might add, hypocrisy in action yet again.

I fail to see how this is a sad event for Texas?

Few Facts here:

1. Said person was a Mexican National, meaning 1 of 2 things. 1) He was illegal and thus already breaking the law. 2) He was a resident with a green card. Legal, but killing someone is still bad.

http://www.ktnv.com/news/national/125186784.html

To Quote "HUNTSVILLE, Texas (AP) -- A 38-year-old Mexican man has been executed in Texas for the rape-slaying of a San Antonio teenager after White House-backed appeals to spare him were rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court."

Take note of the bolded part. Texas courts did not deny anything. The Supreme Court did.

Maybe if I make it big enough people will see it now!

[saxitoxin]

Having served on a grand jury for the last 3 months I can tell you he got a fair trial. Whenever a murder case comes up, there is far more to deal with than say your average drug case. You(the jury) are bombed with info.

This is probably the most interesting post in the thread. I've for often long been intrigued by the Grand Jury system and it's rare you ever run into anyone who's served on one. Is it a federal Grand Jury or a state Grand Jury? How often does the Grand Jury you're on meet - weekly or more often? About what percent of cases you're presented do you indict? How much time is spent per case, what is the division of votes, etc.? Tell us anecdotes.